2014 really hasn’t been a bad year for cars at all. Dare I say we find ourselves in the middle of what some people will call “the good old days” in a couple of decades? Hopefully CC will still be around to document the survivors. Which one is most likely to grace the front page of our site then?
A couple of things came to mind. An unrestored Charger Hellcat would certainly make it. I mean, who doesn’t love big “screw-you” American cars? The Hellcat is notable because not only would we have never imagined that Chrysler would release a 707HP sedan capable of eating BMW M5’s for breakfast, but because it represents a segment that most people thought was dead and buried.
Speaking of dead, can we get some love for the Ford Falcon FG X, the last of the Aussie-built Fords? I know production isn’t over until late 2016, but this is still Revelations, the end of a lineup dating back to the 1960s and that more than a few Americans have looked at through envious eyes.
How about the Jeep Renegade? Jeep has been on a roll lately and the Renegade is supposed to bring that traditional Jeep off-road capability and ruggedness in a smaller, dare I say cuter, package. If they pull it off, they would have given the market something not seen since the Suzuki Samurai. If they don’t, down goes brand image and people will see it as something of a Kia Soul that’s slightly more capable of dealing with rough terrain. Either way, it’ll definitely be worth future analysis.
Personally though, I think that the best future CC of 2014 is the car above this text. Everyone, I’d like you to meet the Citroen C4 Cactus. I will admit that it doesn’t have much in the face of it. Just another cheap, quirky French hatchback that’s powered by a tiny 1.2L 3-cylinder engine and that’s about as well equipped as a taxi-spec 1968 Chevrolet Biscayne. Case in point: the rear windows pop out rather than go down. It also appears to have some nonsensical growths in the doors, which must’ve used all the budget that would’ve been used to make air conditioning available on the base model or a 60/40 split folding rear seat instead of having the whole thing flop down.
But look closer and it all starts to make sense. Those growths in the doors are actually called “Airbumps” in Citroen-Speak, and they’re there so you don’t get dents whenever someone carelessly opens their door into your car. All those omissions means you can get a car that’s very light (in the order of 300kg less than a similarly sized Nissan Juke or Fiat 500L) and very cheap, undercutting almost all of its rivals. Of course you can make it considerably more expensive by toying with the options list and adding climate control and a giant panoramic glass roof or toying with the customization options, but that’s entirely up to the buyer’s discretion.The engine may not be the most powerful thing in history, but the low weight means it should be nippy enough around town and at least not completely terrifying on the open road.
In the face of people endlessly saying that the current crop of cars are too big, too expensive and too tech-laden, the Cactus was released at a very low price with funky styling (do I see a proper interpretation of what the Jeep Cherokee was intending to do in the front?), those nifty airbumps to protect the doors, a very low price and endless customization options. I’d say that it’d make a great piece here at CC. What about you? Have I completely lost my mind this time?
I would surmise that any of the supercars of today, whether it be a Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Viper, Mustang or Corvette UNMOLESTED for the next many years certainly qualify as a future CC. For that matter, ALL newer cars qualify, including my 2012 W-body Impala.
The Chevy so-called “SS” and the Pontiac/Holden V8 G8, not so much. Same for the “GTO”, too.
The Citroen is just plain wrong on all levels, IMHO, of course.
The Camaro, Challenger, etc. would have to not only be stock, but would also have to be equipped with the base V6 engine. 🙂
C’mon, you know a Citroen C4 Cactus would be the next perfect car for you.
Ha! only if it were equipped with a 250/6 cyl. Powergide!
Man, that Cactus is some kind of cool. If it were any cooler it should be called Tequila. This one will definitely be the recipient of motorcycle engine transplants.
I would love to see the interior.
Concur.
Performance cars are just too easy now. Nowhere to drive them, and no need to ‘rod’ them…
I want an ‘SM’ version of the Cacti!
Guck mal.
Wunderbar! Ganz nach meinem Geschmack!
+1
Yes, it looks special (hey, it’s from France and it says Citroën) but these are the bottom lines: It’s cheap to buy, fuel efficient, light (less road tax), basic but not spartan, practical, roomy, a bit taller than the usual hatchback (easy to get in and out) and just big enough. So exactly what the average Euro-family wants these days.
Citroen solves the door-ding problem by making the car uglier than a normal one with door dings? Nah, I don’t think so.
+1
This is the answer to a question that already has a better answer: bodyside moldings.
Are they really filled with air? I can only imagine the fun teenagers would have popping them with pins 🙂
You don’t know French door dings.
Should I trade in my current Citroen? Ah maybe not its only just turned 17 last night plenty more kms left in it yet.
I’m with you, Gerardo, I find the Cactus refreshing. It’s a good thing I don’t live in Europe, I don’t think I’d find a new car as easy to resist as I do in the US.
The Kia Optima will be referenced as one of the best styled cars of the period.
A Peter Schreyer design. He also designed several Volkswagens and Audis.
One of them is the first gen Audi TT.
That’s why! I had no idea.
Drive one, if you get the chance. If I decide to go “big” car for my next one (sometime in 2016), this is very high on my list. It drives as nice as it looks.
I doubt that.
The strakes on the hoods of Chryslers several from years ago reminded me of an old wooden boat. The scribed lines on the sides of the Ford Flex look like house siding. I find both tasteful compared to the egg carton stuck to the side of the Cactus. 😛
I just read a news article about a report that predicts that less than half the cars in the US will have conventional gasoline engines by 2017. (If you read the fine-print however, they include gas engines with turbo/superchargers and start-stop systems as “nonconventional”.)
As alternative propulsion technologies shake-out in the market, some will surely die out. Finding those “in the wild” will become a rare occurrence and surely CC-worthy. Perhaps vehicles with “conventional gasoline” engines will even be an uncommon sighting in 20 years.
Surely the Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell car that just came out will be extremely rare, especially ones that still have working non-poisoned fuel cells. Extra points for the bizarre growth all over the Mirai’s face.
No Comment…
I really like that Citroen!
Weaned on cars that took stylistic chances in the ’50s, I get tired of well designed clones.
And this one is not just different; it’s different in a handsome way. They actually made the Aztek’s Picasso style “double face” look great.
Last, how can I resist a car that has side panels evocative of mailing bubble packs, tortellini or my favorite childhood filled candy bar? (I always saved the vanilla section for last.)
Judging from a standpoint of a Berlingo owner, Cactus is pretty conventional, air-bubbles or no air-bubbles. It will probably disappear from Cactus MK2 anyway…
From a price point, it is not at all cheaper than standard C4, if you select the same engine (at least in my country). Maybe it is cheaper on other markets, otherwise I find current advertising somewhat misleading…
Yes, I read reviews that generally liked it for its low weight and funky styling, but pointed out its non competitive pricing.
While I thank Citroen for trying to be a bit different and launching a family car (at least in Europe) that´s a bit lighter, simpler and cheaper than usual, I would prefer my car with a pair of dings on the doors instead of those airbumps.
And perhaps the public is always right: the “regular” version of the C4 is selling very well in my country (Spain), but I don´t see too many C4 Cactus around.
Happy new year!
I like the Citroen. Thankfully they retain their ability to look beyond the conventional, and address the future car in an appropriately futuristic way. I agree about the Kia Optima, too. It is a beautiful car, but it is of this moment, whereas the Citroen references a coming time.
I think the golden age for cars has already passed. I’m not sure if people will romanticize over cars as they become more like transportation pods or appliances. I don’t think CC would be nearly as popular as it is now in 20 years, if it is dominated by cars like the Cactus or current Charger. I think the cache of CC will remain many of the cars we enjoy now at the site. Only, they will become even more coveted. I never see a Jeep Patriot replacing a CJ-5 as a Jeep people will care about in 20 years. Other than you rode in one as a kid. I suspect, the web viewer count would be much lower than it is now.
I know CC documents the good, the bad, and the ugly. Anything that survives so long. But I think more people post fond memories regarding the original Mustang, than the Mustang II. And people come for the variety. Paul would have the stats, but it’s the great cars that draw people with fond memories. Few cars share that mass appeal or lust anymore as society’s tastes and car sales are so fractured. No car will have the widespread experiences or charm of say a 2CV.
If CC was dominanted by cars like the Cactus in 20 years, I will definitely have found another hobby by then. I must be cynical as I find the trendiness of the Cactus (with latte colours) a modern take on planned obsolescence. The people that lust for it now, will move on in two years. As much as the charm of the Dodge Neon was hyped in 1994. I doubt 1% of the population would care if they ever saw it on the street again. CC certainly wouldn’t have the same passionate followers or traffic without the cars from the golden years of cars. Which is before my youth. And that era is likely gone for good.
CC often celebrates cars that, in their day, blended into the woodwork and for which less than “1% of the population would care if they ever saw it again”.
Just look at today’s offerings: a rebadged Chevy Nova, a rebadged Mitsubishi Galant, and a not-very-old SAAB. And yesterday there was a Caprice wagon and a stripper-model Studebaker. With the possible exception of the Stude, most people wouldn’t give any of these a second glance.
Presuming it continues indefinitely, the articles at CC will evolve based on the interests of the audience, and the types of older cars one can still find plying the roads at that time.
Honestly, would you come here in 20 years to look at a 2013 Kia Forte? Even if it was uniquely magenta coloured with an interesting pattern to the charcoal seats? Not unless there was the odd ’76 Plymouth Feather Duster, 1981 Ford Durango, or ’68 Charger with a slant six mixed in. The site would probably fold.
It takes more than uniqueness to have this passionate following for this website. Given cars are so less individual today and the cars themselves need to have a following to begin with. Since specific models used to sell in much higher numbers, it also creates more memories for the public to relate to if there was a quirky or unusual variant. I think a big appeal of this site is that it taps right into the middle of the gold mine era for many cars and baby boomers love for them. Every year, cars are becoming less individualized. I love cars, but don’t feel the same passion for cars since the 90s, as the field becomes globalized and homogenized. With fewer players and chance for variety. The quirkiness that made cars unique will be phased out.
Speak for yourself. Not every enthusiast, and not every Curbsider, is interested solely in cars of the 1950s-70s. Not everybody on here is a baby boomer, either. There are plenty of us on here who were born in the 1970s-1990s who are car enthusiasts, and while car culture has changed over the years, I feel like your doom and gloom outlook is misplaced. You can’t speak for every enthusiast. Think about many of the popular articles on this website. It hasn’t all been rare Charger variants, we’ve seen articles on humdrum Cutlasses and Camrys and Accords that many of us grew up with and we can look back fondly. We’ve seen articles on newer models that have gotten a lot of hits and comments because they are cars that either the older Curbsiders have owned or us younger Curbsiders have grown up with or desired. I hope this site is still running in 20 years time. If you’re not here, Daniel, I understand. But all of us enthusiasts are different.
Thanks for your reply William. I’m not being ‘doom and gloom’, so much as realistic. With cars becoming more homogenized, manufactures really struggle increasingly with brand identity. I don’t think CC would be nearly as popular, with returning readers, if it featured 1995 Camrys and 1994 Caprices as the bread and butter cars showcased at the site. And I’m talking right now. The interest and passion is not the same. It’s the cars from the more classic era, that seem to really stir people in a interested and positive way. And make this site unique. This is before my time, and I am younger than a boomer. With numerous exceptions of course. I’m not talking about car enthusiasts in general, but those drawn to CC specifically. I’m talking right now, but posts on the 1994 Intrepid or the 1995 Accord don’t sir the interest and passion with CCers as older cars do. As cars become more homogenized, offering more consistent driving characteristics, they will become like appliances. Which is great for transportation, but it won’t draw people to CC the same way. In 20 years, I suspect anticipation of a potential post on a ’75 Granada or a ’71 Camaro will keep people coming back to CC, over a post on the 2008 Fusion. Even though the Fusion is a better car. I don’t think CC would carve out this passionate niche right now, if it regularly posted articles on the 1995 Taurus.
Of course you will get the people doing Google searches for a ’95 Taurus. But I think they’d stick around because of the older, classic cars here.
Are you sure about that, Daniel? I notice there’s always 80+ comments for boring-as-dirt cars like the Ford Tempo. ’94 Caprices or ’84 Caprices (which are even less interesting) already are the bread and butter of this site. Not from a creative standpoint, but I imagine that’s what generates the most traffic by a long shot. How many articles have there been on the countless varieties of slightly different GM B-bodies? Or the Ford Taurus for that matter?
There was nothing interesting or unique at all about most of the cars seen here when they were new. I can’t think of a single way that the Ford Granada is more interesting than the Fusion, unless you were talking about the one built in Germany… and was there ever anything more homogeneous than the typical American car of the 1950s-1970s? Excluding the Corvair, how different were Ford, GM and Chrysler in 1965? They were all selling the same basic cars with slight variations in styling and construction. It’s true that there’s less difference between a Chevy and a Toyota now, but I’m pretty sure there’s a sizable chunk of CC readership that would be quite alright without seeing an article on a Toyota, Fiat, Vauxhall, GAZ or Mercedes-Benz ever again. In other words, it’s clearly not the rampant diversity of an earlier time that’s bringing people here now.
Sean, in a number of ways you are reaffirming my point. I am talking about what makes CC unique on the web. It is the stories about the older cars (and all their many ups and downs) that forms the basis for people coming back. I never said they are better cars. By ‘Classic’ I don’t mean better. Of course most any modern car is far better and superior in almost every regard. In terms of safety, reliability, mileage, etc. I wouldn’t own anything but a modern car for daily driving. But the stories that seem to engage people the most here, and make this site so unique on the web, are the cars from an era when cars were more flamboyant and less regulated. With more exaggerated design and styling. And very interesting, but sometimes risky engineering. Flaws and all. So many technologies were in their infancy. It’s these cars and their stories that I believe bring the most value to CC.
Paul’s comparison article of the brakes on the ’67 Eldorado and the Renault is what makes CC. I love those types of stories.
Mass production and continual cost cutting and homogenization will make cars far more reliable, but with less personality in my opinion. Personality includes all the flaws of cars from the era when cars were less regulated.
This is the whole gist of what I am saying.
It is the interesting character (serious shortcomings and great aspects) of those old cars from when cars evolved into what we take for granted today, that keeps me interested in CC. And I feel gives the site it’s most value. As cars in their current form develop, they become more consistent and adhere to more stringent requirements. Variety will become more subtle.
As modern cars shift to alternate forms of propulsion and methods of travel, I think there will be a great nostalgic interest in all current cars.
I know you don’t mean that one is better than the other, but you do mean that cars from 25+ years ago are intrinsically more interesting than their modern counterparts, and I just don’t really agree with that beyond specific examples.
The Granada you mentioned, for instance, seems terminally boring on the surface. The interest there is that it was a recycled platform (many times over) dressed up to suit the style of the time, and actually turned out to be a hit. The ridiculous advertising comparing it to a Mercedes-Benz is actually way more interesting to me than the car itself, which is not to say I don’t like reading about Ford Granadas – because I do; particularly if someone finds an ESS 302/4-speed example.
But compare that to the modern Fusion, let’s say the current generation rather than the original, and I think you can find even more that’s interesting. Like the Granada, it’s got the face of a more expensive car pasted on (Aston Martin) which was somewhat controversial and polarizing upon introduction, it’s part of one of Ford’s many attempts at standardizing their product on a global level – which may or may not prove to be successful yet, it also represents an increased focus on quality and driving dynamics that has been a large part of Ford’s success over the last decade, it was one of the first plug-in hybrids on the market as well as the first in its class (using a power-split system that is still innovative), which makes it incredibly efficient but also led to a YMMV EPA ratings “scandal”, and it’s also got a 1.5l turbo four available which was unheard of for a car of its size even one generation ago. There’s even a manual transmission available, which means it’s surely one of the last of it’s kind in that respect.
With regards to stuff like the Eldorado vs. R10, a lot of those things can’t be written about current cars because we don’t know what the future looks like yet. That article couldn’t have been written in 1967, and if it was it would have been pure criticism rather than part of a larger narrative about the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Overall, both of those cars turned out to be technological dead ends, but no one could have known exactly why back when they were new. Likewise, going back to the Fusion, no one really knows if plug-in hybrids or turbocharged engines will come to rule the earth one day or end up as nothing but a unique footnote in history, but I’m pretty sure I’ll be excited to spot a Fusion SE Turbo 6-speed or Fusion Energi 40 years from now either way.
Here’s a good example of a really great article on something from more recent history: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-saturns-early-years-corporate-camelot/
Not at all Sean. I don’t have fond memories of my rides in the original North American Granada. Or the Maverick, or Pinto, for that matter. I’d rather own and drive a Fusion any day.
Except for a few occassional spins on the weekend, in the Granada. 🙂
However, when I do come to CC, I’d MUCH rather read all about some Granada that is still kicking. And people’s stories about the car. That rarity factor will trump any 20 year car for me. Every time.
That’s when I am here at CC.
I feel it for those rare old cars that deserve that respect.
The Fusion has to bide it’s time before it goes in the CC Hall of Fame in my books. lol
I LOVE that Paul and CC pay tribute to these veteran, still roadworthy cars. And people have stories to share. Especially, knowing these were the Fusions of their day. I think that’s a huge appeal for many people at CC.
Do I find the Granada more interesting to look at? Absolutely, no question I do. Plus, all the cool colour choices and Ghia trim package, etc.
Far more interesting than the Fusion.
Twenty years from now, when I visit CC, I’d rather read about a 50 year Ford Fairmont than a 2015 Fusion.
In 30-40 years the 2015 Fusion will probably grab my attention, if there isn’t a 70 year old Granada here first. 🙂
That’s all just a function of age and familiarity, though… obviously a 40 year old car still in regular use is more impressive than one that’s 20 years old (with many notable exceptions), but I don’t see how that says anything about the cars of the present day and how they’ll be seen in the future.
There are people alive who remember Deusenbergs and pre-war Cadillacs being used as trucks in the ’40s. Obviously there was no CC then, but I’m sure there were people fascinated by them – and old farts claiming that America hadn’t built an interesting luxury car since Packards had their steering wheels on the right. If you listened to many enthusiast magazines in the ’70s and ’80s, the last car of any value was built in Detroit in 1972; everything after that was pure bullshit. I’m old enough to remember people who are my age now talking about Integras and Celicas as if they were the antichrist of automobiles, and I’m also old enough to be surprised by some of the cars that pique the interest of the younger CCers.
There have been people claiming that the glory days are long behind us since the dawn of the automobile, and they’ve never been right. There have only ever been ups and downs, and 40 years from now, long after the very last ’69 Chevelle has been put in the Chip Foose Memorial RestoMod Museum, I can’t possibly imagine that there won’t be CCs on the street, plenty of people to admire them, and – if not this site itself (god forbid!) – one that serves a very similar purpose.
You’re right Sean. The definition of interesting or creative will evolve in time. And there’s always young and older minds who will be inspired to design the most desirable cars possible. And our intrepretion of what constitutes a desirable car will change and evolve too. With technology it is now so easy to replicate a design or concept instantaneously. And computers will design better cars than people. This is probably the crux of what my concern is. That technology and cost cutting will drive us to the lowest common denominator. And the decadent flamboyance in a car will come down to what color is the gear shifter knob. Of course, I’m joking. But I do feel that many manufacturers are quite struggling the last several years to try to stimulate interest in increasingly less unique and more homogenous and egg shaped forms. Hyundai for example, trumps many more expensive cars in terms of well done exterior and interior design. But that design could be applied to any car. It’s very attractive, but still generic, as beyond their logo what says Hyundai? I do look forward to the challenges they face. But I do think in 35 years, the original Mustang (for example) will be a cherished reminder of when people took more liberties and human guesswork in design… If people don’t know that chrome plastic used to be metal, it won’t matter. But to see that decadence (or wastefulness?) of the past will be quite important to preserve. As once it’s gone, we may not see it again.
Somebody, somewhere in 2035 is going to have an interest in a Kia Forte. It will resonate with them for personal reasons, something we have seen here repeatedly with other cars.
Besides, the umbrella here is quite large and the unique mixes so well with the hum-drum. We also cover a lot of automotive history that has covered the spectrum from tires to automotive publicity stunts to interior dimensions. I actually see that well being as deep as anything found curbside.
We had a recent post about automobiles from the year of one’s birth. From what was stated, there are readers here ranging from 15 to 76 years of age. That range encompasses such a vast range of possibilities and experiences. Anybody is going to have a different take on any given car. For instance, I’m sitting on pictures of a 1932 Chevrolet found (nearly) curbside – it was 40 years old when I was born. However, somebody who is 76 is going to view this car vastly different than I will, similar to how you might view a 2013 Kia much differently than somebody born in 2000.
I would argue since there are more models available from more manufacturers today, the possibilities in future coverage have increased significantly. Your not having as much passion for cars from the ’90s is not atypical – they are newer. Many around here likely felt that way about 80s era cars ten years ago and are starting to see there was a lot of good stuff at the time. That feeling will grow to engulf the 90s and 00’s as time marches on.
A 1995 model year car adds to the interesting variety of course. But a 1960s GM product (for example), from their hey day, would be guaranteed to draw people consistently and reliably in searches and as regular readers to CC. It would be a base. Even for people not even born yet, which includes me.
The quality that seems to makes CC really unique are the cars from the classic era. Regular articles on the 2005 or 1995 model year won’t keep the interest up at the site. They accessorize it. If this site was for people looking for daily driver used cars, it would be different.
In 2035, I believe CC would rely more on people wanting to learn about GMs hey day in the 1960s than many 2015 models. Except for the newest alternate technology cars that are groundbreaking and watershed of course. Remember, I’m referring to CCs target. And what would make people keep coming back. I guess cover both would be perfect!
My key point… Cars from 2015 and 2005 would largely complement the classic cars.
But not form the basis, allowing the site to thrive.
I would be interested to see today’s cars in beater com in 20-30 years. This is the end of my childhood/early adolescence. These cars I will probably have my own fond memories of, like everyone else’s memories of a 1975 Pontiac Ventura, for those from the 70s or later.
Of course, I completely agree with you Edward. It’s really interesting to see such a vast variety of old and new cars. But if you look at CC today, most of the cars are quite a bit older than 20 years. I don’t think CC would be as hugely popular if most of the cars posted came from the 1990s and up. The archives here reflect that volume. That’s the point I was making.
I know today’s cars are better in every important way that matters. But this site is unique in that it seems to showcase the really old and rare stuff still on the road, we just don’t see anymore. That’s what makes it so unique and different than the more modern car review sites. I really enjoy the mix… But it’s the cars older than 25 years that seems to make it so popular, as part of that mix.
I like to come here to read about the obscure cars, or at least obscure packages affixed to common cars, of the past or cars that were notoriously bad or flawed in some way. The latter is what I think will be lost with now current cars being featured in the future. There hasn’t been a car with a corvair like safety omission, or a Vega like engine design in recent years, nor has there been the diversity in layouts like the corvair and Vega for that matter. No, for the most part all newer cars are for all intents and purposes are identical under the skin and (time will tell of course) are all pretty much bulletproof reliable at this point, so what’s there to discuss really? Styling choices? I’m sure that DS series will be super interesting!
Years from now, vehicles that might be of some interest will be highlighted not because of manufacturer or model, but because of color. Anything other than silver, black, white or charcoal. Bonus points for colors other than red or blue. How about an Evergreen Mica 2014 Toyota Corolla? Or an Inca Pearl 2001 Honda Civic coupe? Common cars with uncommon colors for the times.
I think you can include specific designer packages, patterns and textures as well. As people try to find ways to make their car feel unique and personalized.
For me the Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Viper, Mustang (pre 2015) and Corvette are about it for American cars, Nothing Japanese I know about, not sure about European. There are a few European cars I like but they are so expensive and unreliable. I definitely don’t see any cookie cutter FWD sedans, SUVs, minivans, or crew cab trucks on the list. Maybe the PT Cruiser?
Any Caddy. The Fiesta. Golf. New F150.
The good old days are the time from when you were fifteen to the time you were thirty. To baby boomers the music of the sixties will never be surpassed. The cars of that time are the best also. I would imagine that in twenty years, the young people who came of age in this era will have the same thoughts on todays cars as we have on the cars of our youth. One thing that nobody tells you, as you age, your brain keeps telling you that you are still eightteen years old. it is up to your body to disabuse you of that notion.
One problem with that. I definitely like cars from that time period, but I also like a lot of cars that were around long before I was born. They had style and substance. Today’s cars have neither, are mostly made of cheap tin and plastic, and contain more computer parts than car parts. With very few exceptions, enthusiast cars are a thing of the past. IMO, the Fiesta and Golf are nothing more than just 2 more transportation appliances. And I fully expect the new F-150 to fail. Insurance rates will put it out of business. Of course, if it is available as a crew cab, it won’t really matter anyway. While many older cars still exist, all the way back to the Model T, newer cars are truly designed to be disposable. Manufacturers brag about how much recyclable material they contain. Modern “cars” truly have become appliances. They are designed to do a job, be used until they are worn out, then recycled, no different than refrigerators and washing machines. They don’t even worry about style anymore. I doubt there will be any of today’s cars left in 20 years, they will have all been recycled.
the Fiesta and Golf are nothing more than just 2 more transportation appliances.
As has always been their core design mission.?.
newer cars are truly designed to be disposable.
So true. That is exactly why the average age of cars on the road has increased over the years leading up to today…
And they have never been safer, better built or more reliable.
On my recent road trip, in 3000 km of driving, I saw only ONE old car, a Volvo Amazon. All the rest were “appliances.”
And of course, the fabled 60’s cars like the Chevrolet Belair with 283 and Powerglide, or a Dodge Coronet with 318 and Torqueflight were not appliances in their day, right? For every Corvette (still available and better than ever) there were a zillion and two Impalas, and for every Charger, there were a zillion slant six Valiants, and you can still get the Charger, too, only it’s faster and more reliable than ever.
I am not exactly young, but I resolutely refuse to get into “It was better in the old days, sonny.” That’s because I live here and now, not in “the old days, sonny.” We have never had a wider selection of cars, cars have never gone faster, they have never been more reliable, and have never lasted longer. There will be loads of 20 year old cars on the road in 20 years, simply because cars last longer, can go 200,0000 + km without any major work and don’t rust into piles of dust before the powertrain warranty is up.
Heck, my own daily driver is fifteen years old and runs like new. Try that in your 1966 Impala. By 1981 it would have been rusted to dust and been scrapped.
Its an interesting comparism old cars and new I have 2 outside both roughly the same size both 4 cylinder manuals one from the late 50s and the other from the late 90s one FWD the other RWD both drive well one is extremely comfortable quiet smooth fast etc with excellent roadholding the other was very good in its day as a low priced economical family car both are reliable if maintained but both were sold as A-B transportation devices when new, I like em both. One I read and heard about its racing exploits growing up the other I first noticed due to its sporting successes. Neither would be sought after these days by the commentariat but both will be featured here eventually so then yous can offer your own opinions. These are others Ive owned and liked and might write about 60s & 80s
Bryce, you’ve got a Hillman Minx and a Citroen Xsara, right? I think there are tons of us that would like to own both of those!!
Aha but here’s the crux of the argument, a 60s Bel Air and Cornet appliance still look different and will ALWAYS look different than any modern appliance and can easily be made cool by way of engine swap and other modifications(which here at CC we can whine about lol), especially if they were 2 doors(which thee is zero of in modern appliances).
I don’t see that happening with Camrys 20 years from now, since I don’t see that happening to 20 year old Camrys now. The ones that are still on the road will pretty much look the same as they do now, plus a few battle scars. A Cornet or Bel Air on the other hand, when they were twenty, could vary between mint little old lady car to high school hotrod to beater that looks like it’s been to hell and back. As a topic of discussion, old cars just age more interesting than newer cars.
The equivalent of Bel Air vs. Coronet right now would be Impala vs. Avenger, right? Which set looks more similar?
One of biggest causes of the “less interesting” issue, is that cars (esp. American/Canadian cars) do not change as rapidly as they did from the mid 1930s until the 1970s. One of my favorite “modern” cars was the last “square” Cadillac Broughams. The styling went virtually unchanged from 1980 until 1992! (and the 1980 was a re skin of the 1977.) Now think about how many changes (at least in styling) happened in the same time from the 1950’s! Can anyone Imagine a very lightly restyled 1959 bodyshell (Using the same greenhouse,doors, interior and dash!) on a 1974 Caddy? Today you have to be a “car guy” to tell an ’06 Chrysler 300 from a new one, but ANYBODY knows a ’59 DeVille is not a ’61,’63,’65,’67,’69 or ’71 (counting major and minor changes in between ’59-’74) This ONE of the reasons why cars from the Depression Era until The “Second Oil Crisis” will ALWAYS be more interesting among the general public! I don’t even pay attention to New car shows any more – I know (except for a few models) that they will be pretty much the same as last year….Yahhhhhnnn!
I disagree. Minor grille tweaks were the norm for most car updates outside of , but the basic architecture, configuration and overall advancement of technology of cars remained essentially unchanged until the early 80’s with the move to smaller FWD platforms.
And I (and most of my non-“car guy” friends and family) can tell an ’06 300 from a ’15 with little more than a glance. Meanwhile, we can only recognize car styling in general terms of “late 50s,” “early 70s,” etc.
Come on, how really “different” was one American V-8 three box sled from another? They all had base sixes, optional V-8’s, automatics, solid rear axles and drum brakes all around. The didn’t look all that different, either.
When my 2002 vehicle fails (which it doesn’t look to be doing anytime soon, 133K miles and fingers crossed), I hope it gets recycled. It’s a far better fate for my faithful “appliance” for hopefully at least a small part of it gets to continue a life on the road as part of some other vehicle than to just crumble to dust in some junkyard. Not to mention the environmental and economic benefits.
I’d love to also see some data on the average age and condition of cars in 2014 vs., say, 1974 to back up your notions.
Yes, the cars of CC are important, but the personal stories of how they matter in people’s lives are paramount.
BTW the Cactus is unusual in another respect. It’s a car that seems to demand bright colors to come alive. Out of the 3 pix shown, the gray one is the least interesting.
Definitely – I love that blue and it makes the Cactus look great. I bet that color would look great on a lot of cars. The grey-ish color messes up the entire front end and makes it all blurb and blorb together.
But would you be willing to live with that color for more than two years Sean?
Would any of the target market buyers live with that color after it is no longer trendy in 16 months?
It could be the 2015 equivalent of the ivory green Pacer, if this was May 1975. All the rage when new. And embarassing to be seen by 1977. 🙂
Oh yeah, for sure – and I love that color on the Pacer too! I don’t think I’ve ever owned a car that was less than 10 years old at the time, so whether or not something is currently in style is way, way down the list for me. To be completely honest, it’s the kind of thing I’ve never consciously thought of.
But of course, that’s also a great reason for manufacturers to never offer a color like this on any car, haha… the only people who are interested in it are fantasizing about buying it from it’s second owner rather than a dealership.
I Always admired the French on their individuality of design, often very practical and pushing boundries.
Of course we do not always understand what they mean, (Renault Velsatis and Avantime) but the French made the hatchback a success, the French made the space wagon a success and the now popular small car generation in Europe (because gas was and is still expensive) initially started with the Twingo I of 1994.
One can state the original MIni, but that was not a hatchback.
Today we see thanks to car journalists and critics cars look more and more like eachother and we see the development of car building nations go more and more quickly.
A car simply is not really high-tech today, and can be produced by anybody in any country in the world.
What I love about this site is the way that writers and commenters provide context for old cars, so that rather than it just being a parade of pieces about sweet Camaros or Mustangs (yawn), it ranges across the whole automotive landscape, and reminds readers of the part a certain model played in the decline of GM or BLMC, or indeed the rise of Volkswagen or Toyota.
So, as I look back in 2035, I’m anticipating not so much the joy of looking at old Dodges (fun though that is), but more understanding the broad sweep of What Happened Next, and the part today’s cars played in that story.
Such as:
– Did Lincoln ever regain its mojo, or did Ford give up and let it die?
– Under the same heading, did Ford ever build premium cars in ROTW again, or did PAG put them off forever? And, given the margins that other manufacturers make out of the big stuff, what did that do for Ford’s long-term profitability?
– PAGwise, did Jaguar eventually develop as broad a range as, say, Audi, or did they remain a relatively small-scale manufacturer?
– And what did Volvo look like after a couple of generations of Chinese ownership?
– And Aston Martin, did they come back from the almost dead AGAIN?
– What about MG, did they prosper under Chinese ownership and make a serious return to western car markets?
– And to what extent did the Far East market dictate certain manufacturers’ strategy (eg Buick)?
– Whither Renault?
– Did BMW ever build an attractive car again?
– Did Mercedes ever build a robust car again?
– Was there a proper successor to the Land-Rover Defender?
– How did the Indian market develop? Did new manufacturers emerge as India grew?
– And how on earth did Fiat Chrysler pan out?
I’m sure you can think of many more. Happy new year!
It’s not a car that was introduced in 2014. But it’s rare, special, beautiful, affordable and still available: the Renault Laguna Coupé. I always turn my head when I see one, which is not very often.
The good old days are ahead of us.
Autos and just about everything else evolve.
I hope to have a 100% electric car before I die, I’m 70.
In 50 years there will still be dudes and dudesses
wrenching on old flat heads and others trying to get a
few more amps out of the solar panels on the roof.
Enjoy your ride and dream about the hoopties that show
up on this great site. Don’t walk backwards into the future.
+1 That’s beautiful, mannnn!!
25 years from now there will only be a very small minority of people who consider themselves “car buffs”. Kids these days do not care about personal transportation like we did 25 or 50 years ago. They do not lust for a car and they never cared about their bicycle and/or mini bike. In fact many of them do not even bother with a driver’s license until they are 20 and ready to leave college dorm life behind. In twenty years they will care more about the software that allows the car to wirelessly interconnect with tablets/cellphones/other cars, drive itself, park itself, determine its own maintenance requirements, and minimize its own operating costs to its owner.
I think in the future they will talk about the car’s operating systems rather than the mechanical aspects of the car itself…if they talk about old cars at all.
So, which current cars have the most advanced software and the fanciest touch screens? I do not know as these kinds of options on a car do not interest me in the least. I still do not own a smart phone and I have never owned a GPS or a car with blue-tooth or even an automatic climate control system.
I agree completely. IMO, “cars” have already entered the realm where the word “car” is no longer an accurate description of what they have become. To me a car is a mechanical device. Once they started putting computers in them, they began morphing into something else. I will always be a diehard car fanatic, but that only refers to cars without computers. I do not own a smart phone or GPS either, and my computer is a pretty cheap laptop. I have a $50 digital camera. I am also an amateur radio operator who lost interest a long time ago when the digital age hit. I am not investing any more into digital anything than I absolutely have to.
What worries me is what is going to happen to the millions of wonderful old cars out there when nobody cares anything about them anymore? Most real car enthusiasts are already my age or older.
And BTW, I would LOVE to own a Pacer, of any color. Nothing “embarrassing” about it. I would be proud to own and drive it, just like my Pinto.
Most real car enthusiasts are already my age or older
You can’t be serious. Just because others don’t share your exact perspective does not mean they aren’t passionate. Your very narrow viewpoint is likely the cause of why others don’t choose to engage with you. Who wants to argue with a know-it-all?
I can see both points of view. Cars are getting better in many, many ways. But some qualities are being lost or compromised. Some transition is good, some makes us wonder. But everybody comes from a different perspective.
Agreed. Which is why I’m staying away…
Haha… Happy New Year Paul… You’re a smart guy. I do hope 2015 is as stress free as is possible, given you are managing such an increasingly popular site. Glad to know you may stay out of some frays, for your peace of mind.
As your site covers such a broad spectrum of the automotive field, many divergent views are certain (and inevitably) going to gather here. 🙂
I like to argue with know-it-alls 🙂
I don’t think it is a stretch to say the average car buff these days is old. Go to any weekend car show and count the car owners over 50 vs under 50. The geezers are over represented.
I never go to those shows anymore though. I get tired of looking at the typical show quality muscle cars of the 60s and 70s with engines that barely fit. What I enjoy looking at more are high mileage un-restored survivors of makes and models that typically did not get lots of love and pampering when new. I like the engine more than the car and there are a few engines that really interest me. The Ford 300six, the AMC 4.0L six, and the GM Iron Duke, Continental fours and sixes, and a few others. I prefer plow horses over race horses.
My definition of a “car” is something without a computer. I find it impossible to be passionate about anything to do with computers. I play with old cars and motorcycles to escape from computers. I am from the generation before cars had computers. I rebuilt my first 2 stroke dirt bike engine at age 8 (with a lot of help from the local farm mechanic) and by 14 was rebuilding car engines. I learned to love mechanics, old cars and bikes became a lifelong hobby for me. I also had a long career as a mechanic. But computers ruined it for me. I quit my job of 25+ years, and became a vintage car only mechanic. AZ has a large vintage car scene, and it is not all ’70s muscle cars. I am 55. Most of my customers are older than me. I specialize in maintenance and minor repairs, that many vintage car owners can no longer do due to health reasons. Most younger “technicians” have no idea how to work on a vintage car. If you can’t connect a computer to it, they are completely lost. Engines and transmissions are quickly becoming “non rebuildable” when they fail, you replace them. That doesn’t sit well with me. I grew up fixing things, not replacing them.
Now, that does not mean there is not more than one kind of car enthusiast. But for me it is vintage only.
My car has a computer and I’ve built both the automatic transmission it has now and the manual trans that’s going in it, same with the next (computer controlled) engine for that matter, there’s quite a bit mechanical about it (degreeing cams on a DOHC V8 is a bit more complicated than OHV) that I find pretty enjoyable. I’m pretty damn passionate about cars, and yes I know how to work on carbs and points ignitions too.
I’m one to talk though, I embrace electronics that improve upon the ICE, but I’m leery about electronics that replace them.
Interesting that you mention the Falcon Gerardo, if they hold true to form we will be seeing them on the road for a long time yet. A similar thing happened when Holden transitioned to the Commodore 35-odd years ago – for a long time you would see the old models being driven around by people who were not willing to move on. The XR8 in particular will be collectible, but not as much as the last GT that was released earlier in the year and only 500 built.
Perhaps I should do an article on the decline and fall of the Falcon.
I surprised that nobody mentioned the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet because that is such an odd looking vehicle which is an already rare sight these days.